Talk:War crimes during the Sudanese civil war (2023–present)

Crimes against humanity category removal

Crimes against humanity is a specific legal concept. In order to be included in the category, the event (s) must have been prosecuted as a crime against humanity, or at a bare minimum be described as such by most reliable sources. Most of the articles that were formerly in this category did not mention crimes against humanity at all, and the inclusion of the category was purely original research. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Buidhe. I added the category back based on the current HRW report published yesterday (9 May 2024), see: Gallopin, Jean-Baptiste (2024-05-09). ""The Massalit Will Not Come Home"". Human Rights Watch. FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe that there are likely crimes against humanity occurring in Sudan, but I don't see how that matters for categorization. This article according to its title is about war crimes, which are a separate legal categorization from crimes against humanity. (t · c) buidhe 14:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Crimes against humanity committed during a war are also war crimes, I'd say, so there's no contradiction here. Logically the article presumably belongs in both categories. Gawaon (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily (t · c) buidhe 15:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure if we are agreeing to include it or disagreeing as the source below actually supports what Gawaon said for this context

The title follows how the atrocities are being described in news outlets.

I agree with Gawaon as I do not think there is a contradiction (or dichotomy) here especially given that HRW is using the description “crimes against humanity” in the title to talk about what happened in Geniena, which is part of this article that discusses war crimes (committed during an armed conflict) and crimes against humanity which can be committed in war (citing your source) FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

It's true that some war crimes, including those committed in Sudan, can be prosecuted as a crime against humanity. But many war crimes are not crimes against humanity, and even in an armed conflict it's possible to have a crime against humanity that is not legally a war crime. Wikipedians are not legal experts and there is not often certainty about the classification of certain events into legal classifications without a judicial verdict. Ultimately I don't think it makes sense to heavily emphasize legal analyses for what is ultimately a news/history related article about concrete events that happened, regardless of whether they result in prosecution, and I'm skeptical that "crimes against humanity" designation meets the criteria for WP:DEFINING. (t · c) buidhe 16:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Categories are cheap; when in doubt, just put it in. And I don't even think there's much doubt here. Some of the (war) crimes committed during this war are described as crimes against humanity by several independent reliable sources; surely that's sufficient. Gawaon (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Categories should follow existing policies and guidelines, rather than your personal opinion of when they should be used. If it's not defining it doesn't belong. (t · c) buidhe 18:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Definingness is a characteristic of sources about the topic, not the current content, which at present unduly privileges legal aspects, even before giving the reader information about what is actually happening in Sudan. (t · c) buidhe 19:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

So, from your latest commit message I take that you agree that the article belongs into the categories Genocides in Africa and Ethnic cleansing in Africa, right? Also, for crimes against humanity you to non-defining as per the relevant guidelines, you would have to show that the concept doesn't reserve to be mentioned in the lead at all – which seems a rather difficult point to make. Gawaon (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Buidhe, “Definingness is a characteristic of sources about the topic, not the current content” that is a difficult sentence to understand.

How do you distinguish between “current content” and “characteristic of sources”?

Surely the current content is written from the sources which “characterise” the event as war crimes and crimes against humanity

are we splitting hairs here, or you trying to upheld your opinion against the HRW report and USAID?

FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

btw, can we stop warring. Not replying to you buidhe, does not mean we agree with you, it can mean we just gave up on convincing you, and definitely not after extensive discussion on talk, still no evidence as you mentioned in your edit.

Frankly, I am still not sure what is your angle. So a better alternative to warring can be a WP:3O.. FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I think the current categorization is fine. Probably won't come as much of a surprise to anyone here. Buidhe, you're a very experienced editor no doubt, but that doesn't give you the right to unilaterally decide what categories an article can be in. If the crimes against humanity deserve to be mentioned in the lead, they are likely "defining" according to the relevant guidelines, and you yet have to make your case why they shouldn't be in the lead (if you really think so). Gawaon (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Gezeria massacres, Genocide sources and killing of prisoners

• Genocide advisor + more, Genocide Watch.
• Torture
• Fula booming
• HRW report of 9 May 2024
• HRW Atrocities in Sudan
• UN: RSF ethnic killing

FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)